Presentation of Smoking-Associated Cues Does Not Elicit Dopamine Release after One-Hour Smoking Abstinence: A [11C]-(+)-PHNO PET Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presentation of drug-associated cues has been shown to elicit craving and dopamine release in the striatum of drug-dependent individuals. Similarly, exposure to tobacco-associated cues induces craving and increases the propensity to relapse in tobacco- dependent smokers. However, whether exposure to tobacco-associated cues elicits dopamine release in the striatum of smokers remains to be investigated. We hypothesized that presentation of smoking-related cues compared to neutral cues would induce craving and elevation of intrasynaptic dopamine levels in subregions of the striatum and that the magnitude of dopamine release would be correlated with subjective levels of craving in briefly abstinent tobacco smokers. Eighteen participants underwent two [(11)C]-(+)-PHNO positron emission tomography (PET) scans after one-hour abstinence period: one during presentation of smoking-associated images and one during presentation of neutral images. Smoking cues significantly increased craving compared to neutral cues on one, but not all, craving measures; however, this increase in craving was not associated with overall significant differences in [(11)C]-(+)-PHNO binding potential (BPND) (an indirect measure of dopamine release) between the two experimental conditions in any of the brain regions of interest sampled. Our findings suggest that presentation of smoking cues does not elicit detectable (by PET) overall increases in dopamine in humans after one-hour nicotine abstinence. Future research should consider studying smoking cue-induced dopamine release at a longer abstinence period, since recent findings suggest the ability of smoking-related cues to induce craving is associated with a longer duration of smoking abstinence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".